Support it
80% (5026)

Oppose it
15% (938)

Undecided
5% (329)

6293 total votes.

If the Chargers are pointing a gun to your head, it remains unloaded. When Mark Fabiani described the team’s downtown stadium proposal as the “last, best option,” he was speaking chronologically rather than conclusively.

Fabiani meant “last” as in “most recent” rather than “final.” We have not yet advanced to the “or else” phase of this operation, much less the moving vans-in-motion phase. Furthermore, should the Imperial Avenue initiative fail, the Chargers’ consigliere says the team is prepared to revisit Escondido as a potential alternative.

But while inertia is always the best bet in San Diego stadium matters, it is not necessarily a long-term lock. Eventually, Team Spanos may be able to identify an attractive out-of-town alternative. Eventually, voters may have to choose between subsidizing billionaires or bidding farewell to their favorite football team.

No later, it says here, than the year 2525.

“We’ve never put a gun to anybody’s head,” Fabiani said Friday afternoon. “We’ve never established a time frame. But at the same time, I think it’s fair to say we’re getting down to the wire after eight years. We’re closer to the end of the process than to the beginning.

“The truthful answer is if you look out there at the world and what the world looks like, this is our best shot to get something done.”

Since the Chargers’ proposal to redevelop the Qualcomm site was a non-starter, and Plans B through H have proven to be problematic, even the slightest progress might seem significant at this point. Given the perilous state of the world economy, the conspicuous absence of stadium traction in Los Angeles and the prospect of an NFL lockout in 2011, the Chargers’ “best shot” still looks like a “Hail Mary” heaved by Ryan Leaf.

Still, City Council’s June 22 vote on raising the spending cap of the Centre City Development Corporation could lead, conceivably, to a symbolic shovel in the ground. Persuading the public to invest up to $600 million in a playground for the pampered figures to be an intensely tough sell, but that number is certainly negotiable. The Chargers’ $200 million commitment amounts to an opening bid.

The San Francisco 49ers have pledged $493 million to a stadium project that goes to the polls next month in Santa Clara. Presumably, some of that funding involves an anticipated contribution from the NFL — the league’s “G3” stadium loan program has expired — but Niners Vice President Elisabeth Lang declined Friday to divide the pie into its component parts.

Any way you slice it, however, ought to allow for some wiggle room.

“There’s no reason why a good deal for the Chargers and the city of San Diego cannot be realized,” University of Michigan economist Mark Rosentraub said Friday. “The history hasn’t been good. San Diego’s deal with the Chargers originally was not one of the good ones.

“But there are some positive things to keep in mind. Chargers management has an extraordinary record of delivering a competitive team. This is not the Cleveland Browns.”

Rosentraub, who consulted on the campaign for Petco Park, is philosophically opposed to stadium subsidies — “Sports are a diversion, not a public good or service that requires tax support,” he wrote at the end of his 1997 book, “Major League Losers.” — but he is also a pragmatist.

Unlike so many polarized San Diegans, he recognizes a vast middle ground between “not a penny of public funds,” and “whatever it takes.”

“When you try to look at what teams can afford, the issue that is always at stake, that the analysis has to focus on is the size of the market and the total capital at risk,” Rosentraub said. “One has to look at fair rates of return (and) urban design issues. Is it in the city’s interest to have it in a specific location?

“There’s no magic number. It’s different in every environment. San Diego is not the best market in terms of the sales of luxury seating. We’re not dealing with a robust market, so you have to be sensitive to that.”

Citing the narrow width of San Diego’s corporate base, Fabiani said the Chargers would not expect to sell personal seat licenses in a new stadium. Instead, the team’s financing strategy entails persuading voters that vacating the Qualcomm site would create a windfall for the city that could offset the construction costs of a new stadium.

This, too, could be a tough sell. Though the Chargers consider Qualcomm Stadium financially obsolete, many voters consider it perfectly adequate and ideally located. Many attach a higher priority to essential services than to discretionary entertainment. Positions are so entrenched on both sides of the issue that the city’s cowering politicians would prefer to take a stand on a bed of hot coals.

Enter government relations consultant Geoff Patnoe. Formerly a member of Mayor Dick Murphy’s Chargers’ Task Force, Patnoe is a go-to guy for political advice.

“A non-binding advisory vote of city residents in November could pose the question to voters that asks them if city leaders should proceed with pursuing a stadium proposal downtown in the redevelopment district,” Patnoe said via e-mail. “… The city is facing several tough policy issues and asking the people if this should be a priority will provide political cover for city leaders hoping to find a solution to the stadium question or protect them from being blamed should the team leave town.”